On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:40:18 +0000
Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:01:12PM +0100, john lewis wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:24:25 +0100
> > Alan Pope <alan@???> wrote:
> > > Why apt-cacher? Bitfolk provide an apt-cache already.
> >
> > /etc/apt/sources.list does include settings that make use of the
> > bitfolk cache but I got an error message when trying to do an
> > aptitude update/safe-upgrade to the effect I didn't have
> > permission to use the cache
>
> My configuration mistake. I've fixed it now. Sorry about that.
>
> > I haven't previously used apt-cacher but if it does what it says
> > on the tin then it makes sense to save on 'download bandwidth'.
> > Not that I anticipate exceeding the allowance once I have
> > everything set up.
>
> There may be some misunderstanding - apt-cacher is just a sort of
> proxy for apt repositories. You don't need to install anything
> yourself to take advantage of it, you just point your
> /etc/apt/sources.list at it.
Thanks Andy, I'll remove the package I installed and see how it goes
--
John Lewis
Debian (Sid) & the GeneWeb genealogical data server
